Let’s stop pretending our MPs can save the planet

Almost nine years ago, when Malcolm Turnbull was looking to do a deal with a Labor government on climate policy, he declared: “I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.” Apparently he did because just two months later his party dumped him to change its climate plan under Tony Abbott. Mr Abbott eventually led the Coalition to power, opposing a price on carbon before being overthrown, in turn, by Mr Turnbull. Yet the climate and energy imbroglio continues and now, as Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull again wants a bipartisan approach and Mr Abbott again resists. If only our power grid could harness the recycled climate enmities of the Liberal Party we would have that dream combo of reliable, renewable energy.

Australia agreed to a new target at the Paris summit under Mr Abbott and ratified it under Mr Turnbull, pledging to cut carbon emissions by at least 26 per cent by 2030. Mr Abbott now says we should withdraw and reclaim our economic sovereignty. “This is why it’s so important to get out of Paris, to say that we will control what happens in this country and the circumstances under which it happens,” he said yesterday, echoing John Howard on border protection. When the Coalition discusses climate policy in Canberra today, it could get willing.

Mr Turnbull’s national energy guarantee is an attempt to build a reliability quota into the quest for lower emissions. But the driving force of the NEG is emission reduction — like an emissions trading scheme, carbon tax or emissions intensity scheme, it is a mechanism to incentivise clean power to meet the Paris targets. Given the ad hoc evolution of the renewable energy target, the price and reliability crisis it sparked in South Australia, and the threatened supply shortfalls in Victoria and NSW, the NEG represents an untested but plausible way to better manage the sector.

The problem for Mr Abbott and his allies (many Coalition MPs share his misgivings) is that they have no viable alternative. Simply walking away from Paris and the NEG will not unplug the renewable generation already installed under guaranteed cross-subsidisation for a decade to come; and it certainly will not encourage new investment in baseload power given the changeable political and economic outlook. It is far easier to criticise the NEG than to propose an alternative.

The hard reality is that we have actively surrendered a cheap energy advantage to make little more than a gesture to international climate concerns (we are reducing our tiny share of emissions while global output increases significantly). To turn back and repair the damage would need a dramatic political reset, government intervention and economic upheaval.

This is why demands from Coalition dissenters to underwrite investment in dispatchable generation or to intervene to extend the life of the Liddell coal-fired power station in NSW’s Hunter Valley offer a useful compromise. They would ensure against further supply and price stress as the NEG is bedded down and the sector continues its transition. Yet the NEG does not come without risks. It would be a mistake to allow future governments to increase the emissions reductions settings without further recourse to parliament. And parliament also must be able to reduce targets if it sees fit.

Our politicians must stop pretending they can control the planet’s climate. This nation can play only a marginal role and therefore ought to limit the damage it does to its own economy while the world, in total, continues to increase its emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.